With the leading edge of the “Boomer” generation reaching the age of 60 next year, the U.S. is facing a flood of maturing Americans who want and need to maintain their mobility. We have never faced this type of challenge in our history. Forum participants deliberated the following proposed solutions: Acknowledge the issue. The nation seems to be in denial about the massive mobility challenge that we will face. A better understanding of our demographics at the state and regional levels will help the policy debate develop; Realize that the real solutions to this challenge are at the state and local level. The planning to address mobility demands of the elderly must be done on a regional basis, supported by federal initiatives in research, evaluation, and best practice recognition; Improvements in the existing road environments that will help a maturing population will help everyone. Better signage, traffic lights, and pavement markings are win-win investments. They are cost effective in every environment and should be encouraged as part of every Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP); Development of better automobile technology to extend the safe driving of a maturing population is also for the entire population’s benefit. Rear object sensing, forward night imaging, and better dashboard information all help make drivers safer over a longer period of driving; Develop more non-driving options. Transit options can seem both unavailable and unfriendly if they are not developed with a maturing population in mind. Easy access to bus and rail schedules, station and bus stops and route maps benefit everyone, but especially a population that is not easily convinced to use transit. On-demand service providers, in both volunteer programs and full-time staffed organizations, need to be able to provide easy service information and the have ability to custom-design their services to a changing population; Recognize that in many small urban and rural areas, there are few mobility Automated vehicles are challenging the status quo of transportation networks and the policies that support them. The technology is developing quickly and has the potential to make roadways safer, more efficient, and more accessible for Americans. However, commercial deployment is still several years away, and successful implementation is far from guaranteed. To allow the technology to reach its full potential, governments at all levels need to adapt, especially on the state level. State governments have long played an important role in planning, regulating, and managing roadway networks, however AVs could entirely upend the existing federalist structure. This paper provides guidance on how states should prepare for an automated future by adapting their approach to motor vehicle regulations, infrastructure investment, and research. Crafting sound policy approaches to AVs is not a straightforward process, as an AV does not have a singular definition. Instead, different “levels of automation” correspond to varying capabilities of the automated system and the role of the human driver. The policy framework directly correspond to the definitions of AVs, particularly in state-level responsibilities such as liability, licensing, and insurance. However, AVs are not commercially available yet and will not be widespread for many years. Planning for something that is not in widespread use, and designing policies to support it, is very difficult. States have taken one of four approaches to AV policy. A few have fully legalized vehicles without drivers, some have passed laws that expressly permit testing, others have issued direct executive actions, and the rest are either developing laws or are waiting for the market to develop further. This report finds that, while any of these approaches can be effective in the short term, there are some general guidelines that states should follow to avoid regulatory pitfalls, prevent wasted public and private sector investments, and encourage the thoughtful implementation of AVs. In terms of AV regulations, states need to be sure to adhere to consistent definitions. The “levels of automation”, as defend by the Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE), are the national standard and should be worked into all state AV policies. When developing these policies, states should understand legislation or regulatory action alone will not necessarily attract or deter AV testing. An entire ecosystem of engineers, manufacturing plants, and software developers along with good roadways and permissive rules is required to encourage AV testing. When writing laws or executive orders, states need to be careful not to overdesign reporting requirements for manufacturers and tech firms as they continue to test and deploy AVs. While AV companies are not opposed to obtaining special operating permits or specific driver requirements, states must strike the right balance to avoid onerous bureaucracy or exposure of propriety corporate information. Fully self-driving vehicles are still years away from deployment, but in the meantime states should develop partnerships with AV companies, research groups, and localities in order to develop specific pilots to better understand the effects of AVs their roads. States have long been responsible for regulating tort, liability, and insurance for roadway vehicles. AVs could prompt states to redefine some or all of those laws. To prepare, states need to work with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to harmonize tort and liability laws and enable consistent, national safety standards for commercial AV certification. Further, states need to review and update current traffic laws that may directly conflict with the operation of AVs on public roads. To manage the entire regulatory process, states should form an AV advisory committee that monitors and advises on AV policy. Such an entity should include the variety of public and private sector stakeholders. In consultation with this group, states should create non-binding “statement of principles” for certain AV policies such as privacy, cybersecurity, roadway safety, consumer advocacy, and data sharing. When it comes to infrastructure investment, the most beneficial action states can undertake is to improve roadway state-of-good-repair. Since automated vehicle technology works best on well-maintained and marked roads AV firms are naturally attracted to states with a commitment to fix-it-first. Advanced infrastructure investments, such as vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technologies, could further enhance AV capabilities. However, connected vehicle technology (CV) is unproven and still in testing phases. Instead of committing significant funding to retrofitting their infrastructure, states should initiate tests of CV and V2I applications in order to better understand their potential benefits. In order to fund these improvements and other AV infrastructure needs, states should consider developing a road use fee for AVs. States can also experiment with using the fee to manage future demand and mitigate negative externalities. States should be involved in AV research as it pertains to all possible effects of AVs on the broader transportation network. With the private sector leading the way on most AV development, state policymakers should establish themselves as facilitators, by encouraging pilot programs and research efforts at AV testing grounds. States can also fund research to understand how AVs could affect the broader transportation network and incorporate that into state transportation improvement plans. Finally, states need to prepare for the future impacts of AVs on the workforce. With the potential disruptions AVs may have on employment, states should begin to examine and invest in programs that will help retrain workers who have lost jobs to automation. Partnering with universities and the private sector for targeted re-training or career development can enhance early efforts to mitigate job loss and prepare for future workforce challenges. Sound and consistent policy at the state level will help automated vehicles to navigate safely and seamlessly no matter where they are operating. Policymakers should focus on this harmonization in order to allow AVs to reach their full potential while also maintaining the interests and safety of all road users. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting